~epublic of tbe ilbihppines

$'>Upren1e (!Court
~aguio QCitp

SECOND DIVISION

DOMINGO NALDO, JR., G.R. No. 243139

ROGELIO BENITEZ, ISIDRO
ALFONSO, JR., RONALDO
LEDDA, BERNARDO
FABULARE, ARMANDO DE Present:
LUNA, and NELSON LEONEN, S.A.J., Chairperson,
VILLACENTINO, LAZARO-JAVIER,
Petitioners, LOPEZ, M .,
KHO, JR., and
- vers us - SINGH,* JJ.

COR PORA TE PROTECTION Promu lgated:

SERVICES, PHILS., INC. and/or
BUDDY ROBRIGADO and
BENJAMIN SESGUNDO,
Respondents .

x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

KHO, JR., J.:

Before th is Court is a Petition fo r Review on Certiorari 1 assailing the

Consolidated Decision 2 dated February 15, 20 I 8 and the Consolidated

L opez, J.. ./., no part dut> to his prior acl ion in the Court of
Appea ls; Singh. ./., designa ted addi tional Member per Raffle dated Mardi 11. 2024.
1
Dated January 1, 20 I 9; rollu, pp. 8 -26.
Id. a l 32-4 1. Penned by A ssociate Just ice Rodi I V. Zaiameda (now a Me111 bcr or the Court) and concurred
in by Assoc iate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Renato C. Francisco.
lkci sion 2 G.R. No. 243139

Reso lution-1 dated November 8, 20 18 of the Co u1t of Appeals (CA) in CA-

G.R. SP No. 144925 and CA-G.R. SP No. 145329. The C A ruled that the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) did not commit grave abuse
of discretion in its Reso lutions dated December 29, 20 l 5--1 and February 24,
20 16 5 in NCR Case No. 04-04334-1 36 and NCR Case No. 05-06076-15 (LAC
No. I 0-002857-15) when it reversed the Labor Arbiter's (LA) Decision7 dated
A ugust 28, 2015. The NLRC held that petitioners had no intention to resign
but, at the same time, were not illegally dismissed and remanded the case to
the LA for the determ ination of petitioners' money claims.

The Facts

Petitione rs Dom ingo Naldo, Jr. (Naldo), Rogelio Benitez (Benitez),

Isid ro Alfonso, Jr. (Alfonso), Ronaldo Ledda (Ledda), Bernardo Fabulare
(Fabula re), Arm ando De Luna (De Luna), and Nelson Vil lacentino
(Villacentino; collectively, petitioners) were security guards of respondent
Corporate Protection Serv ices, Phils, Inc. (CORPS) assi gned to Tarlac and
Cabanatuan C ity .8 T heir respective hiring dates and salaries were as fo llows:

·- · ·-
Name Date Engaged Latest Salary
Domi ngo Naldo, Jr. February 2008 f> 15,300.00/Jno.9
Rogelio Benitez January 2008 Pl 5,200.00/mo.
Ronaldo Ledda February I, 2008 Pl 5,200.0011110.
Isidro Alfonso, Jr. February 5, 2009 f>l 5,000.00/mo.
Hernaldo rabu lare February 2009 f> I5,000.00/ mo.
Armando De Luna October 20, 2005 f>I 5,000.00/ mo.
Nelson Vi llacentino February 2010 P I 5,000.00/mo. 10

Petitioners averred that CORPS underpaid them and certain amounts

were being deducted from their salaries, as follows: (a) PHP 200.00 to PHP
1,000.00 per month for trust fund savings; and (b) PHP 200.00 per month as
cash bond. Du ring the entire period of their employment with CORPS,
petitioners alleged that they were required to work eve1y day, includ ing
regul ar and special holidays and their sched ul ed rest days. They were required
to be on duty for 12 hours a day. Despite the forego ing, petitioners cl aim that
they did not receive regul ar or special ho liday pay, rest day pay, service
incentive leave pay, 13 th month pay, and Emergency Cost of Living
A llowa nce (ECOLA) from CORPS. i 1

le/. at 42-44. Pennell by Asso1:iale Justice Rodi! V. Z:i lameda ( ;1ow a Member of the Court) and
conc11rred in by /\ssociarc Ju st ices Fernanda L:ir11 pas P<!ralla and Marie Christine /\zcarraga-Jacob.
Id. at 220 2:2 9. Penm:u by C ommi ss mner •\Ian ,1\. \lemurn and con curred in by Presiding Commiss ioner
G regori o 0 . Bilog 11 1 and Co111 111is~ ioner Erlind~1T. /\gus.
Mat 252 255.
" ··NC R-04 -043.14- 15'" in som e part ~ of th e ml/,,.
7
Id. at 156·- i 6 1. Penned by Labor /\ :-biter ~'1c1de- Jt,scphin~ C. Suarez.
Id. a l 33.
" '· P 15,200.00 •• in som e parts of the rul!u.
111 Rollo, p. I 0.
11 / d. a1II.
Decis ion 3 G.R. No. 243139

Due to these grievances, sometime in January 20 15, petitioners fi led a

Request for Assistance (Rf A) w ith the Depa11ment of Labor and Employment
(DOLE) - Nati onal Conciliation Mediation Board (NCMB) through the
S ingle-Entry Approach (SEnA). In their RFA, petitioners cited monetary
c laims consisting of nonpay ment/und erpayment of wages, ove1t ime pay,
serv ice incentive leave pay, holiday pay, SSS, Phi lHealth, and Pag-IBfG
contributi ons. 12

D uring the conciliatio n-med iation conference conducted on March 3,

2015 before the NCMB, CORPS otfored to pay petitioners the ir trust fund
savings and cash bonds. CORPS ' representati ve, Benj amin Sesgundo
(Sesgundo), offered to petitione rs the checks representing such payments, but
they refu sed to accept them and to sign the quitclaims and release as they
demanded to be paid the rest of their money claims. Sesgundo informed
CORPS management of petitioners' demands. 13

In another conciliation-mediation conference held on March I 0, 20 15,

CORPS, through Sesgundo, asked petitioners to submit their signed
resig nation letters before the c hecks, which they were told would cover all
their claims, were d istributed to them. Relying on Sesgundo 's assurances that
the new checks covered al l their money claims, petitioners submitted their
signed resignation letters. Petitioners were also made to sign separate
qu itc laims antedated to March 3, 2015. T hereafter, CORPS, through
Sesgundo, distri buted the c hecks. 14

Upon receipt of the checks, petitioners realized that they were the same
checks that Sesgundo had offered to them on March 3, 20 15, which only
(;Overed the amounts of the ir trust fund savings and cash bond. T hey insisted
o n returning the checks but were convinced by CORPS that the checks for the
other money claims wo uld follow as th e company was sti ll in the process of
va lidating and reconc iling their monetary claims with company records. 15
T his was refl ected in th e Minutes of Proceedings 16 taken during the March 10,
20 15 conciliatio n-mediation confe rence, to wit:

The ma nage ment received the LBC letter from the requesting parties & the
same w ill be validated (DTR) wi th company records w/in this month of
March .. .. a nd w ill wait for R 3 & o ther claims to be reco nci led by mgt. 17

Petitioners alleged that it was o nly due to these assurances th at they

agreed to accept the checks from CORPS in payment or as refund of their trust
fund savings and cash bond . 18 Petitioners attempted to repo1t for work the

i2 Id
1
'- Id. at 11 - 12.
1
~ Id. al ! 2.
1
' Id.
1
" Id. at 155.
i1 Id.
18
Id. at 12.
Dec ision 4 G.R. No. 243 139

following day, but they were prevented from doing so by their supervisors as
they had already supposedly resigned. By the end of March 20 15, CORPS still
did not pay petitioners' money claims as promised, and petitioners were still
not allowed to repott for duty. 19

Proceedings Before the LA

and the NLRC

T hus, on April 14, 2015, Naldo filed a Complaint 20 w ith the NLRC
citing the fo llowing causes of action against CORPS: non payment of
salary/wages, overtime pay, regular holiday pay, premium pay for special
holidays, rest day premium, service incentive leave pay, 13 th month pay,
ECOLA, separation pay, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.
O n May 4, 20 15, the other petitioners fi led their respective complaints2 1 based
on the same causes of action, wh ich were consol idated with Naldo's
Complaint. The Complaints were later amended to include the cause of action
of constructive illegal dismissal. 22

After petitioners filed the complaints w ith the NLRC, CORPS fi led a
Complaint-Affidav it 23 for pe1jury against petitioners in relat ion to the
Verifi cation and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping they fi led in their
complaints before the NLRC. CORPS alleged that petitioners had committed
forum shopping as they had already undergone conciliation-mediation
conference w ith the NCMB. However, the pe1jury complaint was dismissed
by the C ity Prosecutor of Quezon C ity for insuffic iency of evidence m a
Reso lution 24 dated September 8, 2017.

In a Decision 25 dated August 28, 20 15, the LA dismissed the complaints

for lack of merit. The LA held that petitioners voluntarily signed the letters of
resignation and the quitclaims. There was no clear and convincing proof that
these were signed under duress. The LA stressed that the settlement before the
SEnA Heari ng Officer shou ld be honored, otherwise, the integrity and
viability of medi ation and conciliation under the SEnA as a means of resolvi ng
labor grievances wou ld be compromised.26

Aggri eved, petitioners fil ed a Memorandum of Appeal 27 with the

NLRC.

1
·> Id. at 13.
20
Id. at 66- 67.
21
Id. at 69- 70.
22 Id.at 13- 14.
2} Id. at 47- 5 1.
21
• Id. at 63- 65 . Signed by Senior Assistant City Prosecutor Dorothy J. A larcio-Padi lla.
25
Id. at 156- 16 1. Signed by Labor Arbiter Marie Joseph ine C. Suarez.
26
Id. at 160.
27
Titl ed .. Appeal w ith Memorandum of Appeal." Id. at 162- 187.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 243139

fn a Resolution 28 dated December 29, 2015, the NL RC granted the

appeal and set aside the LA 's August 28, 20 l 5 Decision. The NLRC ruled that
petitioners had no intention to resign, but nevertheless, there was no illegal
d ismissal as CORPS had never dismissed petitioners in the first place. The
NLRC he ld that there was a mere miscommunication between the parties as
to the money claims. The NLRC further ruled that the quitclaims were invalid
as their money clai ms were uncertain at the time of their execution. Thus, the
NLRC ordered petitioners to retu rn to work and ordered CORPS to accept
them. The NLRC remanded the case to the LA to continue the proceedings
for the determination of the monetary claims. 29

Both petitioners and CORPS fil ed their Moti ons for Reconsideration,3°
but the motions were denied by the NLRC in a Resolution3 1 dated February
24, 20 I 6.

Proceedings Before the CA

Petitioners and CORPS filed their Petitions for Certiorari with the CA.
Petitioners' certiorari petition 32 was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 144925,
whi le CORPS' certiorari petition 31 was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No.
145329. The petitions were later consolidated.

In its Petition for Certiorari, CORPS averred that pet1t1oners were

g uilty of forum shopping, and that the NLRC committed grave abuse of
discretion in finding that the quitclaims were invalid and that petitioners did
not resign vo luntarily. CORPS further averred that petitioners were barred
from filing a complaint as they had submitted sig ned resignation letters and
quitclaims. T he quitclaims, as argued by CORPS, are an acknowledgement by
petitioners that all their money claims had been paid and the said quitclaims
released CORPS from any furthe r liability. 3•1

O n the other hand, petitioners averred in the ir Petition for Certiorari

that the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion when it failed to award
them back.wages, damages, and attorney's fees despite their forced
resignations and in remanding the case to the LA to determine their monetary
claims.35

28
Id. at 220- 229.
29
Id. at 225- 228 .
.1o Id. at 230- 24 1 and 242- 249, respectively.
31
Id at 252- 255.
32
Dated March 3 1, 20 16; id. at 283-30 I.
D Dated April 29, 2016; id. at 256- 282.
31
• Id. at 268- 272 .
.15 Id. al 36- 37 & 293- 300.

~
Decision 6 G.R. No. 243139

Meanwhile, the NLRC issued an Entry ofJudgment36 on May 3 1, 2016

declaring its February 24, 20 16 Reso lution as final and executory on March
12, 201 6. Pursuant to th is, the LA issued a Notice of Hearing on July 19, 2016
setting the case for hearing on August 10, 2016. On November 8, 2016, the
LA issued an Order declaring the case submitted for resolution pursuant to the
directive in the December 29, 2015 Resolution of the NLRC for the LA to
continue proceedings and determine the money claims.37

In a Decision 38 dated December 27, 2016, the LA ordered CORPS to

pay petitioners: (a) overtime pay, holiday pay, rest day prem ium, subject to
the three-year prescriptive period for fil ing money claims; (b) service
incentive leave covering the entire employment period of petitioners; and (c)
attorney's fees eq uivalent to three percent of the total monetary award due to
petitioners.39

CORPS thereafter filed a Petition for Certiorari40 dated March 6, 2017

with the CA, assai ling the Decision dated December 27, 2016, with prayers
for the issuance of a restra ini ng order and preliminary inj unction. This was
dismissed by the CA in a Resolution 41 dated August 23, 20 17 for fai lure to
abide by the requirements under the Ru les of Court, Rule 46, Section 3 for
filing a petition for certiorari.

The CA Ruling

In a Consolidated Decision 42 dated February 15, 20 I 8, the CA

dismissed the consolidated petitions for certiorari of petitioners and CORPS,
docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 144925 and CA-G.R. SP No. 145329 on the
ground that the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in issuing its
assailed rulings.'13

On the allegation of foru m shopping, the CA ruled that petitioners were

not guilty thereof. The SEnA was set up under the DOLE Department Order
No. (DO) l 07-1 0, Seri es of 20 I 0 44- later institutionalized under Republic Act
No. (RA) 10396 ·15 - as an adm inistrative approach to prov ide a speedy,

36
Id. at 33 8. Sig ned by Acting Executi ve C ler k o f Court II Gilbert T. De Ungria.
37
Id. at 16.
38
Id at 33 9- 342.
3
" Id. al 34 2.
4
o Id. at 349- 367.
11
• Id. at 368--370. Penned by Associate Justice Jliusep Y. Lopez (now a Member of the Court) and
concurred in by Associate Ju sti ces Ram o n M. Bato, Jr. and Sam uel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the
Court).
42
Id. at 32-4 I.
-1.1 Id. at 40.
~-I Entitled "GLJIDl: I.INl:S ON TIii: SiNULE ENTR Y Al'l'IW/\CII PRESCRIBING /\ 30-DAY MANDATORY
CONCILI /\TION-Ml:Dli\TION Srnv1c1;s FOR A LI. L 1\HOR /\ND EM PLOYMENT CASES," ( October 5, 20 I 0).
15
• Entit led "'AN AU STIO:NliTI 11:NIN(j CONCll.li\TION-M EDI/\Tll)N i\S i\ VOI.LJNT/\RY MOl)E OF DISPUTE
Si:Tl"Ll:Ml.:NT FOR /\ 1.1. L i\llOll CASES, AMl:NDINCi FOR THIS PURl'OSI: ARTICLL: 228 OF PRESIDENTI AL
Dl:CRl:E N O. 442, i\S /\Ml :Nl ll:D, 0TI ll' RWISI.- K NOWN i\S Tl II: '"Li\UOR CODI: OF Tl IE Pi!ILIPl'INES,"
approved 0 11 March 14, 2 0 13.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 243 139

impartial, inexpensive, and accessible settlement procedure of all labor

disputes to prevent them from riper1ing into full- blown cases. All labor
disputes, with certain exceptions, are required to undergo SEnA as a
mandatory procedure prior to the filing of a labor complaint. Thus, avai ling
of SEnA and later on filing a complaint before the NLRC does not amount to
forum shopping.46

The CA also ruled that neither th e resignation letters nor the qu itclaims
prevented petitioners from filing a complaint w ith the NLRC. Res ignations,
to be valid, must be made voluntari ly and with the intention of rel inquishing
the office coupled with an act of relinquishment. The resignation must be
unconditional and with clear intent to relinquish such position. The burden of
proof is on the employer to show that such resignation was vol untary.47 The
CA rul ed that it was clear that petitioners had submitted their resignation
letters entirely because they were assured by CORPS that they would receive
their money claims. Had they known CORPS wou ld renege on its prom ise,
they would not have executed the resignation letters.'18

The CA noted that the quitclaims and resignation letters, while s igned
before the SEnA officer, were not signed in the presence of a counsel who
could have advised petitioners on the legal consequences of their acts, thus,
placing them in a disadvantageous pos ition. T his notw ithstanding, the CA
agreed with the NLRC that there was no illegal dismissal, and as such, the
payment of back wages could not be given as a matter of course. T he CA then
concluded that the rem and of the case to the LA for computation of the money
claims was therefore proper. 49 Thus, the CA affirmed the Resolution 50 dated
December 29, 20 15 and the Resolution 5 1 dated February 24, 20 16 of the
NLRC, which ordered the remand of the case to the LA and further ordered
petitioners to return to work and for CORPS to accept them.

Aggrieved, petitioners moved for reconside ration;52 but the same was
denied by the CA in a Reso lution 53 dated November 8, 20 18.

Hence th is Petition. 54

II, /J.at J7.

11
• See l .aga/;ir v. />uc//il' Conc:ord CoHlaino- lin.!s. 778 Ph i L 168 (20 16) IPer J. Bersam in, first Di vision].
.,s Rollo, p. 38.
1
• '' Id. nt 39- 40.
11
' Id. at 220- 229. P,·nncd by. Com missioner Alan,\ . Vemura and c0ncurred in by Commissioners Gregorio
0. Bi log Ill and Erlinda T. Ag.is.
51
hi. at 252- 255 .
Ci:! Id. al 37 1 ·377.
:-:l Id. al 42---44.
'' hi. at 8- 26.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 243 139

The Issues Before the Court

The issues for the Court's resolution are whether: (a) petitioners are
guilty of forum shopping; (b) the quitclaims signed by petitioners before
SEnA are legal and binding~ and (c) the CA erred in ruling that petitioners
were not constructively dismissed and thus, were not entitled to backwages,
moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. In relation to the last issue,
the Cou1i is likew ise tasked to determine: (i) the validity of the resignation
letters executed by petitioners; and (ii) petitioners' entitlement to their
monetary c laims, such as backwages and moral and exemp lary damages.

Petitioners aver that there is constructive dismissal when an employee

has been forced to resign, and that there is forced resignation w hen the
employee is made to involuntari ly submit or tender resignation through the
machinations of the employer. Here, petit ioners aver that it is clear from the
CA's factual findings that they were forced to resign. As the CA ruled, it is
the employer who has the burden of proof of showing that the employee
voluntarily resigned, and CORPS fai led to discharge this burden. Considering
that they were deceived and/or forced to execute their resignation letters,
petitioners concluded that they were constructively and illegally dismissed.
Thus, petitioners argue that they are automatically entitled to backwages,
damages, and attorney's fees since they were illegall y dismissed.

On the other hand, CORPS, in its Comment, 55 avers that petitioners are
gu il ty of forum shopping as they had already received the checks representing
their money c laims before executing their qui tclaims and agreeing to a
compromise agreement, while du ly assisted by the conciliator-mediator of the
NCMB assigned to the case. Since the issue was settled with the NCMB,
petitioners should not have fi led another complaint for the same money claims
w ith the NLRC. Further, CORPS argues that the quitclaims and resignation
letters were executed in the presence of the conciliator-mediator that
conducted the SEnA, and they are, therefore, binding and legal. Thus, the
resignations executed by petitioners were completely vol untary and there was
no constructive dismi ssal. Sim ilarly, the quitclaims were also binding and
they prove that CORPS has paid all of petitioners' money daims. CORPS
asserts that the checks issued to petitioners covered a lI thei r money claims. 56

The Court's Ruling

T he Petition is meritori ous.

55
Id. at j90-405.
56
Id. at 39 i W4.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 243139

I.

Case law instructs that there is forum shopping when the fo llowing
e lements are establi shed: (a) identity of the parties or at least such parties who
rep resent the same interests in both actions; (b) identity of the ri ghts asserted
and the re lief prayed for, such relief being founded on the same circumstances;
and (c) identity of the two preceding particulars, such that any judgment
rendered in the other action will, regardless of which party is successful,
amount to res judicata in the action under consideration, said requisites
li kewise constitutive of the elements of litis pendentia. 57

The th ird e lement is wanting in this case. As correctly ruled by the CA,
concili ation-m ediation proceedings is a mandatory prerequisite for fil ing a
labor compla int with the NLRC. T he Labor Code, as amended by RA ] 0396,
states:

ART. 234. Mandatory Conciliation anJ Endorsement o/Cases. - (a)

Except as provided in Title VII-A, Book V or thi s Code, as amended, or as
may be excepted by the Secretary of Labor and Employment, all issues arising
Crom labo r and employment shall be subject to mandatory conc il iation-
mediation. The labor arb iter or the appropriate DOLE agency or office that
has jurisdiction over the dispute shall entertain only endorsed or referred
cases by the duly authori zed officer.

(b) !\ny or both parties involved in the dispute may pre-terminate the
concili ation-med iation proceedings and request referral or endorsement to the
appropriate DOLE agency or office wh ich has jurisdiction over the dispute,
or if both parties so agree, refer the unresolved issues to voluntary arbitration.

Jt is clea r from the forego ing that conciliation-medi ation is a condition

precedent for a compla int w ith the NLRC. It is not, as respondent CORPS
avers, an en ti rely separate and identical procedure involv;ng the same issues.

F urther, the re is no resjudicata in this case even assuming the amicable

settlement before the NCMB became final. Case law enumerates elements of
resjudicata as fo llows: ( I) the judg ment sought to bar the new action must be
fina l; (2) the dec ision must have been 1·endered by a court having jurisdiction
over the s ubj ect matter and the parties; (3) the disposition of the case must be
a judgment on the merils; and (4) there must be as between the first and second
actio n, identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of action. 58

In th is case, there is no "<lec:i~ion" rendered by~~ "court" in conc iliation-

mediation proceedings, in the sense that the term "decision" is used in legal
parlance. These proceedings, t~) which NCMB's authority is li mited; do not

" Lo11do11 11• /Jaguiv Co11ntr11 C/11h Cor p. , -1:,9 Phi!. 487 \2002) !_Per J. Vitug. First Div:sionJ and Heirs ol
Mm11po ,,. /i.t/urocla, 888 Phil. 583 (2(,~0) [Peri. Ca~uioa. Fir.;t D ivision].
;x Lee v. Lui Man C /11mg, ?59 Phil. .:5:?- i. 5::1::1 ('.2D !.5} !Per .i. Mt>ndcza, S':!cond Division] and Philippine
National /Jank ,,. Damd11r, 0()5 Ph;i. 5}3 (2G:2 I', fP.:r J. Hern ande, Third Div is1on l
 Decision 10 G.R. No. 243 139

resul t in a "judgment" that determines whether, in its opin ion, the claim is
meritorious, as a condition precedent to the institution of a complaint before
59
the NLRC. Amicable settlements obtained through conciliation-mediation
proceedings must be diffe rentiated from arbitral awards from arbitration
proceedings, whi ch can only be nullified after the appropriate trial. In any
case, what is involved in the case at bar is an am icable settlement w hich
remained unfu lfilled.

T hus, res judicata does not lie and the requ isites of forum shopping
have not been met.

11.

"Necessitous men are not, tru ly speaking, free men; but to answer a
present emergency, wi 11 submit to any terms that the crafty may impose upon
them." c,o Due to this truism, case law looks upon quitclaims, waivers, or
releases with di sfavor. T hey are deemed to be largely ineffective to bar
recovery of the full measure of a worker's rights, and the acceptance of
benefits therefrom does not a mount to estoppel. This is especially true in
instances where instead of promoting the orderly settlement of disp utes, the
execution of the same results in the circumvention of proper legal procedures
and the evasio n of payment of a worker's legitimate clairns.61

Thus, in land and Housing Development Corp. v. Esquillo, 62 the Court,

throug h Justice A rtem io V . Panganiban, ruled as follows:

[Q]uitclaim s nnd/o r comple te releases executed by the employees do not

estop them from pursuing their claims aris ing from unfair la bor practices or
the employer. The bas ic reason for this is that such quitclaims and/or
complete re leases are against public policy and, therefore. null and vo id. T he
acceptance or terminatio n does not divest a laborer of the rig ht to prosecute
hi s employer for unfair labo r practice acts.63

Esqui/lo, however, clarifies that " [n]ot all waivers and quitc laims are
invalid as against public pol icy. If the agreement was vol untarily entered into
and re presents a reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may
not late r be disowned simply because of a change of mind. It is only where
there is clear proof that the waiver was w[r]angled from an unsuspecting
or gullible person, or the term~ o f settiement are unconscionable on its
face, that the law wiil step in to annul the questionable transaction. B ut

51
' />once v. K i11g Lian, I 07 Phil. 263 (. I 961;) I Per J. J 11.L. Reyes].
100
ln1er-Orie111 Mari1i111e. Inc I'. C£111rlaw1, -; ; .:: Phil. 628, 642 (::'.0 13) [Per .I. i'l~i'ias-£3crnabe, Second
Division j, ci1i11g U11il-ersi1y 11( San:o To//ias v. ,',b1,l(;/wng /v/a;;ggagawo ng UST'. 6 I 6 Phil. Ll74, 496
(2009) [i>crJ . Yrrnres-Snntiago, Th ird OrvisiOPj.
r, , Id. at 64'.?, ciri11g /11/erorienl Mur iti11u: E.111er n;-.'scs. Inc. v. Rt!mo , 636 Phi l. 240 , 2:i I (2010) [Per J.
Nnchurn, Second Division ].
02
508 Phil. 478 (2005) [Per .I . Pang;rniban . t'n ird Di visi0:1I.
"·' Id nt 487, c·ifing M ur cos v. NL,RC, J I 8 Plr:I. I T:. IR.!.<. 199.'i) [Per .J. Regaiado, Second Di vision ].
Decision 11 G.R. No. 243 139

where it is show n that the person making the waiver did so voluntarily,
with full understanding of what he was doing, and the consideration for
the quitclaim is credible and reasonable, the transaction must be
recognized as a valid and binding un<lertaking."64 In this regard, Esquillo
explains that a quitclaim is void ab initio where the quitclaim obligates the
workers concerned to forego their benefits while at the same time exempting
the employer from any liability that it may choose to reject, as this would run
counter to New C ivil Code (NCC) A rticle 22, which provides that no one shall
be unjustly enriched at the expense of another. 65

T hus, "[fl ora deed of release, waiver, and quitclaim to be valid, it must
be shown that: (a) there was no fraud or deceit on the part of any parties;
(b) that the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and reasonable; and (c)
that the contract is not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or
good customs, or prejudicial to a third person w ith a right recognized by
law. The burden rests on the employer to prove that the quitclaim constitutes
a credible and reasonable settlement of what an employee is entitled to
recover, and that the one accomplishing it has done so voluntarily and with a
full understand ing of its import." 66

Here, it has been establi shed that the checks given to petitioners during
the conciliation-mediation conference covered only their trust fund savings
and cash bond. In asserting that the quitclaims are valid and binding, CORPS
is asking petit ioners to forego their benefits to which they are legally entitled
to under the Labor Code. CORPS asserts that it is no longer liable for
petitioners' money claims on the basis of the qu itclaims having been executed
before the SEnA officer after petitioners were furn ished the checks.

The Court cannot agree with this position.

Regardless of whether the quitclaims were executed before or after the

petitioners were g iven the checks, or before whom they were executed, such
quitclaims are VOID as they were signed by petitioners with the honest
belief, based on assurances made, that they wou ld be paid their money
claims in full.

CORPS avers that petitioners accepted the checks in lieu of all their
money claims against the company. However, the Minutes of Proceedings
taken during the March I 0, 20 15 concili ation-medicltion conference clearly
belies CORPS's averment as the said Minutes show that CORPS ' s

"·1 /,,111c/ and l/011.1ing D evel opme!ll c,.,rp. , •. C,q!1i!i.i. 508 l'hi!. 478, 488 (:~001) lThircl D ivision] , citing
l'erh1:1et ,•. NLl?C, 264 Phil. 11 15. i ! :?.7. ( !(J<)()) [P(;;r .i Cruz, Firs! Div1sio11J.
5
" Lane/ an d I-lo using D er elOf!lllt' /1/ C o!'p. v. Esq ui/i(), 508 Ph il. 478, 488 (2005) [T hird D ivision1, citing
Murcr>s v . /../LRC, 3 18 Phii. 172, 18'...: ( !995) !_P..,r .I. Rcga:ado. Second D iv i!iion]. See also Artic les 6 and
22 oflhe N t·w Civil Code.
()h r. F. Crn:, & Co.. !11 c. v. Uuiu1,1dc , 8'i fj l'liil. :.~o. ! 5?. (20 i 9) [ Per .I. i'cri a~- Bernabi;:, Second Division] ;
cirntions omitted; emphasis suppiied.
 Decision 12 G.R. No. 243139

representative, Sesgundo, expressly stated that petitioners' other claims would

be reconciled by manage ment. 1' 7 C learly then, both pati ies were aware that
there were pending money c laims to he reconciled. Both parti es were also
awa re that the checks did nol represent the entire amount due to petitioners
and ne ither did petitioners accept such checks intending to fo rgo all other
money cla ims aga inst CORPS .

For th is same reason, the Co urt cannot agree w ith the CA and the NLRC
th at this was simply a misunderstanding. T he CA 'sand NLRC's own findings
of fact clearly indi cate an intent to defraud on the part of CORPS.
S ignifi ca nt ly, the CA uses the word "lurecf'68 on its own fact ual findings to
describe how the CORPS tri cked petitioners into signing the quitclaims and
submitting their resignation letters. Havi ng clearly been aware that petitioners
continued to assert their ri ghts to the ir money claims despite acceptance of the
checks, CORPS ca nnot now assen a different understanding of petitioners'
intentio ns as well as the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the
quitclaims.

In sum , this Court declares as VOID the quitclaims executed by

petitioners in favor of CORPS on the groun d that the latter employed deceit
and/o r fraud in making the fo rmer execute the same. Hence, the quitclaims
wi ll not operate to bar petitioners from seeking their legitimate claims against
CORPS in these proceedings.

Ill.

At this juncture, it is well to re iterate that petitioners accuse CORPS of

constructively dismissing them; on the other hand, the latter maintained that
there is no such dismi ssal, considering th at petitioners vol untarily tendered
the ir respective res ignati o ns.

The Court rules that petitioners were constructively dismissed by

CORPS.

ln constructi ve d ismissal cases, the fundamental rule is that w hen an

employer interposes the defense of resignation, the burden to prove that the
employee indeed vo luntari ly res igned rests upon the employer. 69 In Doble, Jr.
v. ABB, /nc., 70 the Court., through Ju ": ticc Diosdado M . Peralta, discussed the
concepts of constructive di s1i1issal and re~;ig nari on as fo l lows:

To begin wi ll!, c,rns1ruct: ·.;:, d1 smissc1i is defined as quitting or

1.:ess.-1tion of worL bcc.::iuse ::onti nt:ed employment is r1;ndered imposs.i ble,

i-
7 l?ollo, p. 155.
,.~ Id. at 38.
9
" LJuh/r:, .Ir. l'. .·l i38. /11,:. , 810 Pt-,il. :2i 0. '22~ 2~9 ~)f/i"i1 tp.:r j Pc:::rnha, SeconJ Division].
70 /ti.
 Decision 13 G.R. No. 243139

unreasonable or unlikely; when there is a <lernotion in rank or a diminution of

pay and other benelits. ll exists if'a!1 act of clear di scrimination, insensibility,
or disdain by an employer hecnmes so unbearable on the part of the employee
that it co uld foreclose any choice: by him except to forego his continued
empl oyment. There is involuntary n.:signation due to the harsh, hostile, and
unfa vorable conditions set hy the employer. The test or con structi ve dismissal
is whether a reasonable person in the empl oyee's position wo uld have felt
compelled to give up his employment/position under the circumstances.

On the other hand, ··rrJesignation is the voluntary act o f an employee

who is in a situation w here one bel ieves that persona l reasons cannot be
sacrificed in favor of'the ex igency of the service, and one has no other choice
but to dissoc iate 011ese lf from employment. It i s a formal pronouncement or
relinqui shment of an office, with the intention of relinquishing the office
accompanied by the act of relinquishment. As the intent to relinquish must
concur with the overt act of relinqui shment, the acts of the employee before
and after the alleged resi gnation must be con~ idered in determining whether
he or she. in fact, intended to sever hi s or her employment.'' 7 1

Thus, " [t]or the resignation of an employee to be a viab le defense in an

action for illegal dismissal, an employer must prove that the resignation was
vo luntary, and its evidence thereon must be c lear, positi ve and convincing.
T he employer cannot re ly on the weakness of the employee's evidence." 72
F urther, case law instructs that " in order to withstand the test of validity,
resignations must be made voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing
the office, coupled with an act of relinquishment. T herefore, in order to
determine whethe r the employees truly intended to resign from their
respective posts, we must take into consideration the totali ty of circumstances
in each particular case." 73 Relatedly, in a number of cases, the Court had
cons istently held that an involuntarily executed res ignation is vo id and
constitutes constructive dismissal. 74

In Torreda v. Investment and Capital Corporation of the Philippines,75

the C ourt, through Justice Alexande r G. Gesmundo, held that an employee
who was forced to sign a prepared resignation letter under threat of
termin atio n was considered to have been constructively dism issed.

In SHS P e,forated Materials, Inc. v. Diaz,76 an e mp loyee' s salary was

unlawfully withheld by hi s employer, forc ing him to resign and to submit his

- -·- - - -
71
IJ. at 229, c11111g Gan v. Ciahlerma fhilir,,-;,';·1es, l11c. . 70 i Phil. r, 12, 638- 6=,9('.~013 ) [ l'er J. Peralta, Third
Division l-
71
(.,'runde v. Philippine Nm::i.al 7h:.';1i11.~: (,',;/h:ge, 80<, f 1i ;1. 60 I, 6 12--6 13 (2011) [Per J. t'eralta, Second
Division1, dting D. M C.1111s11,11i (',;r11r.1a11m1 1· lfr!/o, 7 15 l' hil. 33::i, 338 (20! 3) [Per .J. Bersom in, f-irst
Division l-
7
-' Urw1Jc! v. l'liilipp in,.; /1/c;uth:al 7i·,,;ning Culll'ge, 1J. al(, I (i, ciii•1g S!vii:; [Jank !nc. v. De Gu:man, 7 19
Phi l. I 03. 12 l l '.201 3 \ I_P,~r C.J <;,•r•~n o, t.;1, l ki!d.
71
S•w id. Sec alsfJ .·II-Mas()'<! 0 1·er:,cu.,· ! ' l :tc,s,i1er1I , /y,' ncy, Inc 1·. Viernes, 869 Ph il. 123 (20:20) [Per J.
lnting, Second Division!: To1rc'd(1 V. ,,,v:-,1,w,.'?/ {Ill( / C:apil<!I Corpornti,111 <?/rll.! f'hi.'ippin<!S, s:,9Phil.
I 087, I 098 (20 I 8) tper J. G<?~.111un,!,:. T h ;;·c: Di, i~ion I: un,1 SIIS !'1.:r/ im11eJ ,i\,/uterir.,!s, Inc. v. Diaz, 64 ·;
Phil. 580. 599 (20 I 0) [Per J. i\,knck•za. Secom I Divi~ion J.
7
' 839 Phil. I 087(20 18) [Per J . (,C'~111:11:d 0 . T!J :rd l)iv:~iGt: j.
;·., 647 Phil. 580 ('.201 0) rre:· .I. M endi:Wi , Second Div ;~:e:n/.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 243 139

resignation letter. T he Court, through Associate Justice Jose C . Mendoza ruled

that the unlawfu l withholding of sala ry amounted to constructive dismissal.

In Al-Masiya Overseas Placement Agency, Inc. v. Viernes, 77 the foreign

e mployer: (a) did not secure a working v isa for the employee; (b) did not pay
he r properly in accordance with her employment contract; (c) d id not assign
he r to a perman ent employer for the entire duration of her contract; and (d)
made her sign a resignation lette r as a condition for the release of her passport
a nd plane ticket. The Court, through Justice Henri Jean Paul B. lnting opined
that it was only logical for the employee to consider herself constructively
dism issed .

The a bove cases invo lve resig nations obtained through intimidation; on
th e othe r hand, the present case involves resignations obtained through deceit
a nd/or fraud. However, both situations are anathema to due process and fair
p lay. Like the quitclaims, petitioners' execution of the resignation letters was
condi tioned on the understanding that CORPS would pay all their money
c laims in full. CORPS asserts that the word ings of the resignation letters show
that petitioners' resignation was vo luntary. However, the fact of filing a
resig natio n letter alone does not sh ift the burden of proof to show the
voluntariness of the resignation. 78 Notably, CORPS submitted its
computations of petitioners' overtime pay, holiday pay, and night shift
d iffe rential pay, among other money claims on March 3, 2015 during the same
conc iliatio n-mediation proceeding w here they were offered the checks
representing the trust fund and cash bo nd. This led petitioners to believe that
their money claims were being computed as agreed upon . 79 F urther, as
specified in the Minutes of the March I 0, 20 15 conciliation-mediation
conference, CORPS acknowledged that there were money claims yet to be
paid to petitione rs, even after the resignation letters and qu itclaims were
signed. 80 T hus, it is clear that petitioners signed their quitclaims and
resignatio n letters due to CORPS 's misrepresentation that they would receive
the entirety of their money claims if th ey do so.

It is apparent from the established facts that CORPS ' s representative,

Sesgundo, assured petitioners that they wou ld be paid their money claims if
they s ubmitted their resignation lette rs and signed the proforma quitclaims.
It is also apparent that CORPS had no intention to fulfil l such promise.

An illegal di sm issal is one where the employer openly seeks to

terminate the e mployee; in contrast, co nstructive dismissal is a dismissal in
disguise. 8 1 ln thi s case, CORPS through fraud, induced petitioners into

77
869 Phil. 123 (2020) [Per J. lnting, Second Division j .
78
Pwwsonic Ma1111f'act11ring Philipp in1:s Corp. \'. ,nl!cks1,11. 850 Ph il. 68, 80t2019) [Per J. A. Reyes, Jr.,
Third Div isionj.
n Rollo, pp. 38- 39.
XO Id.
~, Torreda I'. lnves1111e11t and Capital r orporatio11 <d.the J>/11lippi11es, 83') Phil. I 087, I 098 (2018) lPer J.
Gesmunclo, Third D ivision].
 Decision 15 G.R. No. 243 139

s igni ng resig nation letters and quitclaims. In doing so, they attempted to
disguise petitione rs' dismissal as a vol untary termination of employment. This
is c learly a case of constructive dis missal.

JV.

An illegally di sm issed employee is entitled to two separate and distinct

re liefs: (a) back.wages; and (b) reinstatement, or if the same is no longer
viable, separation pay in lieu of s uch reinstatement. 82 In addition to these basic
awards, an ill egally d ismissed employee may also be awarded moral and
exemplary damages, and attorney's fees.83 However, it is we ll to clarify that
moral and exemplary damages are no t awarded to illegally dismissed
employees as a matter of course. T he Court has held that moral damages are
recoverable only when the dismissal of an employee is attended by bad faith
or fraud or constitutes an act oppressive to labor or is done in a manner
contrary to good morals, good c ustoms, or public pol icy. Exemp lary damages,
on the other hand, are recoverable w hen the dismissal was done in a wanton,
oppressive, or malevolent manner. 84

In the insta nt case, petitioners were clearly dism issed without just or
val id cause and without procedural due process, and was done in clear bad
faith. Petitioners were tricked into executing resignation letters through
false promises and were prevented from returning to work even when the
promises remained unfulfilled. Bad fa ith is fu lly evident in this case as
CORPS tri cked petitioners into sign ing res ignation letters and quitclaims to
absolve itself of liability, without any intenti on to pay petitioners the money
claims promised. Even worse, CORPS fil ed a criminal compla int for perjury
aga inst petitioners, in a b latant effort to discourage them from pursuing what
they are legally entitled to. T he perjury complaint was later d ismissed by the
Q uezon Ci ty Prosecutor's Office fo r insufficiency of evidence. C learly, such
acts are oppressive to petitioners and contrary to public policy. For this Court
to a llow employers to absolve themselves of liability throu gh qui tclaims and
resignation letters signed through fraud ulent mach inations woul d be a gross
injusti ce.

In view of the foregoing, the Court deems it proper to order the

re instatement of petitioners, and to award to each of petitioners: (a)
back.wages, including the legally mandated 13t1, month pay, from the time they
were illegally dismi ssed o n March 10, 2015 until the finality of this ruling; (b)
PHP 50,000.00 as moral damages; (c::) PHP 20,000.00 as exemplary damages;
and (d) attorney's fees equivalent to I 0% of the total monetary award due to

82
Abhull laboratories, /'l,i/ippines v. A!curaz, 7 111 Phil. 5 I0, 569 (2C13) lPer J. Pe rlas-Bernabe, £ 11 Banc1,
citing Macascro v. Southern lnciuslrial Gase.\· l'hilippines, 597 Phi l. 494. 50 I (2009) [Per J. Carpio-
Morales, Se1:ond Division].
83
Ahboll Lahoratories, Philippincv v. Alcur,.1;;, 714 Ph il. 5 10, 569(201 3) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, En Banc].
~-, Symex 5,'e curi(v Services, Inc. v. Rh·era, .Jr., 820 Phi l. 653, 673-674 (?.0 17) [Pe r .I. Cag ui oa, Second
Division].
Decision 16 G.R. No. 2431 39

petitione rs. 85 The forego ing awards are in addition to those monetary sums
awarded by the LA in its Decision dated December 27, 20 I 6, i.e., overtime
pay, holiday pay, rest day premium, and service incentive leave pay.

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED. T he Consolidated

Decision dated February 15, 2018 and the Consolidated Resolution dated
November 8, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G .R. SP No. 144925 and
CA-G .R. SP No. 145329 are he reby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Respondent Corporate Protection Services, Phils., Inc. is found to have
constructively di smissed petitioners Domingo Naldo, Jr., Rogelio Benitez,
Isidro Alfonso, Jr., Ronaldo Ledda, Bernardo Fabulare, Armando De Luna,
and Nelson Villacentino. As such, respondent Corporate Protection Serv ices,
Phils., Inc. is hereby ORDERED to REINSTATE petitioners and to pay
each of the petitioners the following: (a) back.wages, including the legally
mandated 13 th month pay, from the time they were illegally dismissed on
March 10, 2015 until the finality of this ruling; (b) overtime pay, holiday pay,
rest day premium, and service incentive leave pay pursuant to the Decision
dated December 27, 2016, unless the same were already paid to petitioners in
full; (c) PHP 50,000.00 as moral damages; (d) PHP 20,000.00 as exemplary
damages; and (e) attorney's fees equ ivalent to 10% of the total monetary
award due to petitioners. A ll monetary awards shall earn legal interest at the
rate of 6% per annum from the date of finality of this Decision until fu ll
payment.

Finally, the Labor Arb iter is hereby ORDERED to prepare a revised

comprehensive computation of the monetary awards based on the foregoing
and cause its implementation, w ith utmost dispatch.

SO ORDERED.

~ ~<o;-.· roo~
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:
,,,,.,,
' 1/A'f'-....
M.V.F. LEON~N
V ------
----- ~

Senior Associate Justice

C hairperson

85
See Article 111 ol't hc Labor Cod1.:, art. 11 .
Decision 17 G.R. No. 243 139

AMYC. ZARO-JAVIER
As,sociate Justice

;
MARIA)ElbOMENA-0:'SINGH __ _
.
(___....-- Assoc iate Justice

/" ATTESTAT?ON
/
/

I b.test that the conclusio ns in the above Decision had been reached in
consul tation before the case was assigned to the wri ter of the opinion of the
Court 's D ivis ion.

CERTI Fl CATION

Purs uant to A rtic le V III , Sectio n 13 of the Constitution and the D ivision
C ha irpe rson' s Attestation, I certify that the conclus ions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court's D ivision.